Oh my: Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Gitmo open

posted at 6:46 pm on February 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

Pity poor Glenn Greenwald, who thought the left’s opposition to Bush’s counterterror policies was based on something more profound than crude partisan tribalism. Why he thought that, I don’t know: The writing was on the wall when the anti-war movement started dying even as Obama geared up for a surge of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan. In fact, I’ll bet O now regrets banning enhanced interrogation so soon after his inauguration. At the rate we’re going, we might be seeing 60+ percent support among liberals for waterboarding too.

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.

Obama has also relied on armed drones far more than Bush did, and he has expanded their use beyond America’s defined war zones. The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns…

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.

The most generous spin you can put on this for the left is that it’s not so much that they’re gung ho for these policies as that they trust Obama won’t abuse them. Some, for instance, might have opposed them initially simply because they feared that the programs would be expanded in terrifying ways under the dreaded neocon imperialist warmonger Bush. I remember in the last few months of his presidency reading comments online wondering if he’d declare martial law and cancel the election; when you’re that paranoid about a president, you might be inclined to oppose his every move on everything simply to tie his hands as much as possible. One he’s gone, replaced by the smiling Unicorn Prince, the anxiety eases and opposition sags. That’s partisanship 101: Our guy’s one of us and therefore his intentions are good, so if he thought it was important to drop a bomb on Awlaki, eh, I guess he had his reasons. It’s not that they’re endorsing Gitmo, in other words, it’s that they’re endorsing O’s good faith and responsible stewardship. Again, this is the charitable spin.

Even in that case, though, three things are clear. One: Obviously, they have no deep objection to Gitmo or drone strikes on the merits. If the president’s good faith is all that’s needed to sanitize the policies then there’s nothing terribly dirty about them in the abstract. Two: Equally obviously, they’re willing to tolerate the policies being expanded. Had Bush sent drones after a U.S. citizen, it would have given the left aneurysms, but here’s O doing it and everyone’s okay with that. Is that because they think the policy is an affirmatively good thing, or is it simply that Obama hasn’t exhausted his line of trust-credit with the left yet? I was joking in what I said about waterboarding up top, but now I wonder. Three: They’re repudiating their own core argument during the Bush years about the rule of law. Public officials can’t be trusted because even the well-intentioned ones are susceptible to being corrupted by power; only the rule of law, replete with oversight and checks and balances, can keep them honest. Turns out most of the left doesn’t really believe that, but apparently thinks it’s only the ill-intentioned ones — as the Bushitler was alleged to be — who need watching. Both sides are prone to this error when it’s their guy in charge, but go figure that liberals, who trust government to intervene benevolently in all sorts of policy areas, would tolerate Obama being a little more interventionist than they thought he’d be when it comes to killing and imprisoning terrorists.

Ah well. The silver lining for Greenwald and other principled opponents is that these will all become horrible perversions of democracy again if/when Mitt Romney is elected this fall. Once again he and the rest will be the tip of the legal spear against an out-of-control warmonger president instead of a daily dose of online absolution for those who’ve betrayed the cause. In honor of the moment, enjoy this trailer for what I’m calling the greatest movie ever made. It’s totally cool to hoot and laugh at it now, but if Romney wins it’ll be quite crass and insensitive.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Does the political right operate differently?
libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 7:45 PM

The ACTUAL right, with people like West, Palin, etc.? Yes, big difference. The REPRESENTATIVE right, with people like Romney, McCain, Boehner. No…its no different. But you frakin libs keep telling us what racist pigs the actual base of Conservatism is…so we never get to see actual principled leadership like you claim to want so bad.

It’s always the Marxist Dems or the Big Gov’t (spineless) moderate Repubs, thanks to folks like you who ruin it for all of us. If you actually followed PRINCIPLED leaders of the left, like Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, I’d respect you. But, you know as well as I do that their Socialist nonsense doesn’t sell in the USA, so you crawl up inside the @$$es of people like Obama and pretend like he’s not a facist because its all warm and toasty up there…nevermind the fact that you just surrounded yourself with dung. Meanwhile they spew falsehoods about Palin or call West an Uncle Tom, and tell us how they hate blacks and old people and the Easter Bunny, you know…lie…about the principled ones.

If we ever had an election that asked the voting public if they wanted individual liberty + border security + proactive war on terror + less government *or* socialist government nanny statism + open borders + namby pamby begging of terrorists not to hurt us…we all know how that would go.

So you really should stop complaining. Your propaganda fooled the masses last time, and shows no sign of quitting. I just wish I could be there to see the look on your face when the bureaucracy finally has you in its teeth and you realize what an absolute moron you’ve been for abdicating your own personal liberty because you didn’t win enough trophies in elementary school or get to sit at the right lunch table…and you thought the nanny state was going to make it all better…

He can rant at Obama, and then those on the left can nod their heads and say “I agree,” and then go back to supporting Obama to the hilt, contented that they’ve demonstrated their consistency by nodding their heads for one second.

It’s a purgative. By agreeing, your sins are forgiven, and you may then get back to sinning, in the form of worshipping Obama and his/Bush’s war policy.

* * * * * * * * *

There should be a word for “agreeing without actually agreeing.” The comments at Salon are “in agreement,” in this sort of agreement I mean. If your “agreement” does not include any actual action, you don’t really agree with the proposition at all.

I guess there is a word for it already — hypocrisy, the tribute that vice plays to virtue.

Either they really found these things “repulsive” — literally, inducing a vomit reflex — under Bush, or they did not, and were just lying in order to secure political power.

But it cannot be the case that they were literally repulsed by Bush’s policies — driven to hair-tearing anger — and yet can look past it in Obama, albeit with a meaningless “Tut tut” of weak disapproval.

Another thing you don’t see them doing is covering their hands with their ears and saying “Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!” nor did they blame the Commander in Chief when some soldiers made bad wee wee somewhere.

Fleuries on February 8, 2012 at 7:35 PM

The Left had to throw Halliburton under the bus in 2007 after their Sugar Daddy George Soros bought $62 million worth of the company. It supposedly now makes up 2% of his portfolio, according to some sources.

Well, yeah, no surprise. John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) was quite the anti-Saddam meanie during the run-up to Operation Desert Fox — why, he even spoke of the probable need to take the tyrant down! — but I doubt that the children in the MSM (that would be the libtard left) recalls any of that.

They do not care about protecting America. They do not care about dead Muslims. They do not care about what a wonderful thing drone kills truly are. And Gitmo? Code Pink & Co. doesn’t give a flying xxxx. What MATTERS is winning the political game to these people. It’s all about abstractions: in this case, communist/socialist ideology. Obama has been a very, VERY bad boy on the Gitmo/drone-attack front. But that’s okay. They believe in him. They have faith that Obama, if given a second term, will finally cut this proud military (and freedom-loving nation) of ours down to size.

I’d like to see a comparison to earlier polls. While libs certainly supported and end to torture and possibly restoration of habeas corpusm I’m not sure that closing Guantanamo was ever particularly popular, and speaking for my own crew of leftists, drone attacks were always pretty popular.

Then there are a dozen other aspects to the war that weren’t asked about: black prisons, killing civilians, renditions, various unsavory aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act, etc.

This is at best a snapshot.

And Allah has one thing right – we’re more comfortable with Obama wielding this sort of power because he seems a hell of a lot more effective and responsible with it.

I see all the war mongers did not like my comment. I’ll give you a better one then. Rush Limbaugh. When a Democrat is President, Limbaugh talks down the economy. When a Republican is President, Limbaugh talks up the economy.

Just imagine if Gore won in 2000 and was CINC on 9-11. He could have declared martial law, rounded up and waterboarded every Muslim in the country, started WWIII, and began indiscriminately MIRV-ing every country whose name ends with “stan”, and the left would have had their pom-poms out cheering him on. Hypocrites.

and speaking for my own crew of leftists, drone attacks were always pretty popular.

Today I’ve seen libertarians express agreement with the criminalization of sodomy between consenting adults and “leftists” claim that they support drone attacks during interventionist wars. Has the world gone completely insane?!?

Today I’ve seen libertarians express agreement with the criminalization of sodomy between consenting adults and “leftists” claim that they support drone attacks during interventionist wars. Has the world gone completely insane?!?

libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 9:40 PM

I am staunchly pro-sodomy, if that helps.

War is war. Drones work.

Am am not in favor of assassinating American citizens in foreign countries via drones, however. Nor am I strong on interventionist wars — though I would argue that Afghanistan was not “interventionist.”

The problem with your argument is that only a relatively small portion of the population listens to Limbaugh or talk radio in general, and those who do listen know he has an agenda and which side he’s on (he admits it), and take what he has to say as opinion rather than fact. The vast majority of people still get their news from ABC, NBC, and CBS, which do the inverse of what Limbaugh does, talking the economy up when a Dem is in charge and talking it down when an R is in charge and presenting their information as unbiased fact rather than opinion. Six years ago we were told on a daily basis how atrocious five or six percent unemployment was. Now we’re told how wonderful 8.5% unemployment is and get articles about “funemployment” and other such drivel.

Please do not confuse the war mongering Democratic party with the American left. Or are we forgetting that it was Republicans who were once the lesser of the two evils on hawkish issues (though not necessarily because of a belief in pacifism). But no, the Democrats foreign policy has always been imperialist and interventionist at its heart. Who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Who authorized and pushed for the Vietnam conflict? Who was behind Kosovo? The Democrats can not claim to be “the left” of Republicans of foreign policy, under what criteria exactly? Unless you believe that Democrats are the archetypes of benevolent imperialism in the form of U.S. Aid, which is about as effective as pissing in a water well. Ish like this is why I voted Green in 2000 and 2004.

Six years ago we were told on a daily basis how atrocious five or six percent unemployment was

I would like you to use your Google skills and find any major newspaper where this was a headlined story five times in a month.

You’re misremembering.

Ad, also, mischaracterizing current reporting which is — accurately, and at best — cautiously optimistic about the economy, which wrote “bad economy” stories for 18 months and which regularly emphasizes the unusually slow pace of the recovery.

All I can do is shake my head, you don’t know me. Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are personal heroes of mine. I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. You do. not. know. me.

libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Bullsh*t. I know you very well.

You would support Obama if he had High Value Terrorist Suspects waterboarded and placed in Stress Positions in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech.

There is virtually nothing Obama will not do that you will not rationalize. You are a bootlicker and a lickspittle jackal. You are a loyal jugend waiting to take his place in the Torchlight Parade past the Fuhrer’s Balcony.

For you on the Left, Oceania has Always Been at War with Eastasia.

Everything you accused Bush of doing was a lie. The only thing you cared about was power, the only thing you wanted was the Power for Your Side to be able to Torture and Wage Permanent War.

Obama started a program called Fast and Furious, the result of which led to the deaths of over 150 Mexican citizens. Nobody on your side cares.

Obama is prepared to wage an undeclared war in both Syria and Iran. Were McCain and Palin in power, you would be screaming bloody murder. Now you rationalize permanent war.

All you cared about was power. Fortunately, you progressives are fated by history to go the way of Erich Honecker and Leonid Brezhnev, but not before you’ve done an incredible amount of harm to this country.

The problem with your argument is that only a relatively small portion of the population listens to Limbaugh or talk radio in general, and those who do listen know he has an agenda and which side he’s on (he admits it), and take what he has to say as opinion rather than fact.

yeah, I guess that 20 million people ain’t really that much now is it./

Ah well. The silver lining for Greenwald and other principled opponents is that these will all become horrible perversions of democracy again if/when Mitt Romneythe Republican Nominee is elected this fall. Once again he and the rest will be the tip of the legal spear against an out-of-control warmonger president instead of a daily dose of online absolution for those who’ve betrayed the cause. In honor of the moment, enjoy this trailer for what I’m calling the greatest movie ever made. It’s totally cool to hoot and laugh at it now, but if Romneythe Republican Nominee wins it’ll be quite crass and insensitive.

I fixed it for you.

Please stop shilling for Romney. He is not the nominee as of yet, and, God willing, he will never be. Statements like the one made above are based with the assumption that he will be, but, with Santorum’s sweep yesterday, I wouldn’t be assuming anything about Romney.

Six years ago we were told on a daily basis how atrocious five or six percent unemployment was

I would like you to use your Google skills and find any major newspaper where this was a headlined story five times in a month.

You’re misremembering.

Ad, also, mischaracterizing current reporting which is — accurately, and at best — cautiously optimistic about the economy, which wrote “bad economy” stories for 18 months and which regularly emphasizes the unusually slow pace of the recovery.

urban elitist on February 8, 2012 at 9:55 PM

The phrase “jobless recovery” ring a bell? That’s what the media kept saying every time there was good economic news in the Bush administration. Unemployment was typically around 5-6% during the “jobless recovery.”

All I can do is shake my head, you don’t know me. Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich are personal heroes of mine. I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. You do. not. know. me.
libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Not it’s not intended to be. You’re just boring and absolutely unoriginal. You think something that has been tried since the dawn of time and never worked can work if YOU try it today. Socialism does not work because it quashes personal liberty. Human beings will always be inclined to pursue their own individual desires. The two are not compatible with one another. You are boring, even though you think your worldview is entirely fascinating and unique.

“While libs certainly supported and end to torture and possibly restoration of habeas corpusm I’m not sure that closing Guantanamo was ever particularly popular…”

Geez, nice try on the revisionist history, sport- libs “supported” an end to torture and “possibly” restoration of habeus corpus?

Puh leez, every lefty blog I visited during the Bush years was full of people howling for Bush’s head because of his fascist torture/waterboarding/shredding of the constitution. And are you really going to try to tell us there were not endless, and I mean endless, lefty talking heads on CNN and the other alphabets droning concernedly on and on about the reckless Bush doctrine of torture and how it was Al Qaeda’s best recruiting tool?

You are a fundamentally unserious person if so.
“Then there are a dozen other aspects to the war that weren’t asked about: black prisons, killing civilians, renditions, various unsavory aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act, etc.”

Interesting- most if not all of what you mention there has been expanded, or at the very least continued as is under soetero. And not a peep about it from you ever so concerned lefty defenders of liberty. Strange, given that all this stuff made Bush the second coming of “HILTER!!!111!!!” in the eyes of all you clever libs – even gave us a series of ridonkulously horrid movies about the eeeeeeville Bush regime like “rendition”.

Now when barky does all this stuff plus 5, not so much. Gosh, no double standard there, not even the weensiest bit. I mean, haven’t seen ads for “rendition II, obama’s doing it too” yet- when is that movie set to drop?

“This is at best a snapshot.”

Agreed- a snapshot showing that the modern left is a primitive, squealing, smelly beast propelled solely by a lust for power, possessing no morality outside of “gimme it, gimme it now”.

I remember in the last few months of his presidency reading comments online wondering if he’d declare martial law and cancel the election; when you’re that paranoid about a president, you might be inclined to oppose his every move on everything simply to tie his hands as much as possible.

I all fairness to the left, I recall during the 2000 election people on the right making the same claims. Back then I was brand new to the interwebs and found the site freerepublic – which helped get me through that election, although that site went downhill very, very quickly – and there were regular posts and comments on there worrying that Clinton was going to declare martial law and cancel the election. So, that kind of paranoia exists on both sides of the aisle.

Does the political right operate differently?
libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Yes. When we agree with the president, particularly on issues of national security, we admit the agreement. We agree with Obama keep GITMO open. We agree with the drone strikes. We agreed with his surge in Afghanistan. We don’t gin up fake moral outrage over national security issues and embrace America’s enemies to do so. We don’t put America down to other countries and invite international courts to “try” democrat politicians.

Is there some of this type of hypocrisy on the right in politics? Yes. We overlook things in republican politicians that we would go after a democrat for. Everyone does that. But, is it anywhere near the level or viciousness of the left’s? Not even close.

There’s an enormous difference between claiming that Bush is a war criminal and murderer and having constant protests claiming he should be tried by the international court, and the left and democrat politicians attempting to undermine foreign policy and national security policies versus overlooking some republican politician’s peccadillo that we would try to use against a political opponent.

Saying “everyone does it” does not excuse the left’s behavior. Feigned moral outrage over a peccadillo is not the same as what the left has done here.

Give me a break.
Nader is nothing but another socialist nutbag.
So by supporting Nader, you support a different kind of socialistic control than the Democrats offer.
It’s pretty telling, regarding your sanity, that you would proudly state you support a man like that.
He’s just another shilling crook.
Making money like Al Gore does.
Off the weak minded.

Bush’s policies that were excoriated as evil by radical Democrats are now blindly accepted because of complete loyalty to their Messiah. If you read up on Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, you’ll discover much the same sort of people; mindless acceptance, blind obedience. Don’t expect rationality.

I realize this is a bash Nader site, but, I fully remember all of this back when the info was coming out.
You are either nothing more than a socialist-AKA communist wannabe OR you are a lemming.
Either one is not flattering.

Sorry for dropping this in so late, but using the recommended Google skills and the words “Unemployment headlines under Bush” this is the first link that came up. Granted, it’s a conservative site, but the links themselves don’t lie.

we’re more comfortable with Obama wielding this sort of power because he seems a hell of a lot more effective and responsible with it.

urban elitist on February 8, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Just like implementing programs that are bankrupting other countries, usurping a co-equal branch’s power (“recess” appointments), violating the WPA and claiming bombs =/= hostility, etc., they’re okay with it because the other folks who tried this stuff were all dumb. This is THEIR guy, and their guy is smart, so it’s okay this time (“we’re more comfortable with Obama wielding this sort of power“).

It’s the same mindset that cheers a coach after pedophilia-coverup charges hit the papers.

See that. Like I said – I know her better than she knows herself. She’s been called everything under the sun for espousing her communist views and she enjoyed every moment of it. But – when I tell her how plain and unoriginal her views are, she bolts.

Being boring is worse than being a communist…because if I call her a communist she is EDGY and DANGEROUS! If I call her boring then she is easy to ignore. She DEMANDS your attention! Her poor parents now have to deal with her throwing tantrums in the basement instead of typing drivel on Hot Air.

Fact is socialism/communism/etc. is boring. It’s easy. Everyone has tried it. Everyone fails at it. It takes no original thought. The founders of this great nation had an original thought. To leave people alone. in 200+ years we have seen how simply elegant and effective the notion is, and how incredibly difficult it is to execute such a simple plan.

So long LibFreeOrDie. I’d say we hardly knew ye…but we know ye all too well.

The dude’s right- it is kind of creepy. What’s to be gained by saying stuff like this?

NukeRidingCowboy on February 9, 2012 at 11:25 AM

If you go back through the thread – she said “You.Don’t.Know.Me.” when I told her how unoriginal she was. My comment was a take-off on her melodrama. Typical lib wants to address everything in a vacuum as though I brought that “creepy” thought out of thin air.

es, espousing a belief in capitalism freedom as the best possible system is like uber original and interesting. You’re the first!

libfreeordie on February 9, 2012 at 4:18 AM

FIFY… and yes, it is the best!

dominigan on February 9, 2012 at 11:25 AM

What’s funny is how she thinks any of us want to be “the first” to come up with an idea. The idea works. I didn’t come up with it. I’m just asking the libs to leave it alone and not screw it up for all of us.

I suppose it could be seen as a joke if you didn’t go on to say things like this:

See that. Like I said – I know her better than she knows herself.

and then back it up with how you knew she’d bolt after calling her views boring. She probably bolted because the playground insults are pointless. Things like “I thought I heard rattling.” What’s the point of resorting to stuff like that when he have such an edge on our worldviews?

I think the overriding conclusion is that the left can conduct and engage in warfare with tons more abandon than the right can ever be allowed to.

If these drone attacks went hot-n-heavy during the Bush administration and Awlaki, (a US citizen!) and KSM were turned into goo during a drone strike, the left would be renting their clothes, Krugman would be bemoaning the death of due process along with every MSM outlet and all the usual suspects on the left and the protests would begin in earnest all the way up to the Capital.

Face it: A lefty President (like Clinton in Kosovo/Serbia) and Obama now, can kill with abandon and the left is cool with it cause their guy is in charge and helping out with all their redistribution stuff and other gimmes’, handouts and favors.

When there are no ground troops, there are no REPORTERS to report the deaths and the gore! Isn’t that neat?

See, if a Republican president’s administration like Bush’s found out about a camp of terrorists in an area, ground troops would engage them and the one’s not killed would be sent to GITMO along with the “helpers” (civilians”) in the camp that are the “go-fer’s”, etc. Then, see, the reporters would wail and rent their clothes in outrage on how we killed some “civilians’ and then imprisoned survivors at GITMO violating and abusing their human rights. Then, they receive a Pulitzer Prize, the Press and the US populace villianize the president and his administration and he loses votes and finally his presidency.

How messy and completely avoidable! The Dems take a different tack altogether!

See, if Obama’s administration find out about a camp of terrorists in an area, the hell with ground troops and engagement and imprisonment of survivors both enemy and civilian!

She probably bolted because the playground insults are pointless. Things like “I thought I heard rattling.” What’s the point of resorting to stuff like that when he have such an edge on our worldviews?

NukeRidingCowboy on February 9, 2012 at 12:05 PM

She’s a communist. A socialist. One of the same.
She admits she voted for Nader. Who is an opportunist/communist/socialist/hypocrite.
I didn’t find the comment creepy at all.
She seems to see no irony in her positions.
So either she really doesn’t know herself, we know her better than she does (which is true of most people bcs they will not admit the truth of themselves TO themselves) or she’s fully aware of what she is, but denies it to us.
Whatever the case, we can see through her facade & protests to the contrary.
She clearly has no problem with communism AKA socialism bcs she voted for Nader.

I think the overriding conclusion is that the left can conduct and engage in warfare with tons more abandon than the right can ever be allowed to.

If these drone attacks went hot-n-heavy during the Bush administration and Awlaki, (a US citizen!) and KSM were turned into goo during a drone strike, the left would be renting their clothes, Krugman would be bemoaning the death of due process as would every MSM outlet and all the usual suspects on the left. Then, protests would begin in earnest all the way up to the Capital.

Face it: A lefty President (like Clinton in Kosovo/Serbia) and Obama now, can kill with abandon and the left is cool with it cause their guy is in charge and helping out with all their redistribution stuff and other gimmes’, handouts and favors.

When there are no ground troops, there are no REPORTERS to report the deaths and the gore! Isn’t that neat?

See, if a Republican president’s administration like Bush’s found out about a camp of terrorists in an area, ground troops would engage them and the one’s not killed would be sent to GITMO along with the “helpers” (civilians”) in the camp that are the “go-fer’s”, etc.

Then, see, the reporters would wail and rent their clothes in outrage on how we killed some “civilians” and then imprisoned civilian survivors at GITMO violating and abusing their human rights. Then, the “reporters” would receive a Pulitzer Prize, villianize the president and his administration and he would lose votes and finally his presidency.

How messy and completely avoidable! The Dems take a different tack altogether!

See, if Obama’s administration find out about a camp of terrorists in an area, the hell with ground troops and engagement and imprisonment of survivors both enemy and civilian!